Of the four cameras you considered, I believe you have chosen the best option. I moved on from my old and trusty D70 to the D7000 and have not looked back since. Still much to master on this great camera. I have also used (but not owned) a D200 and a D90 and I believe that the low-light capability of the D7000 over these other two are just one of the many improved features of the newer D7000.

Take good care of it and it should reward you with many superb images and wonderful memories.

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

Currently I have a d300 and a d70s. For some time already I want to replace my d70s by a camera similar to or better than the d300. This was supposed to be the d400. For ages now I have been waiting for that camera to be released but it seems I have been waiting in vain. I am leaving for Africa on 22 february and I definitely want a new body before I leave. The d70s is not up to standard any more to do justice to my 2 lenses (70-200 f2.8 VR II and a 300 f4, 1.4 converter).

The two most important features for me would be the fps rate and the performance at high ISO values. Number of MP is a bit less important but of course not unimportant. Full frame or DX sensor is less an issue for me since (at least at my travels to Africa) the standard lens on the new camera would be the 70-200 f2.8. Since I am mostly pointing at critters the cropfactor is by no means a real disadvantage.

What would the Nikon connoisseurs recommend me to buy. I see 4 options

- d7000: good for the budget, good fps, upgrade compared to d300 regarding mp but not brand new and maybe replaced in a couple of months. Also the ergonomy is different to the d300 in the way that it feels less professional - d300s: a tad better than d300 but even older than the d7000. same “feeling” as d300.- d600. Full frame, megacamera. 5.5 fps which is less than I expected when I was thinking about a new top notch camera but still very acceptable. DX still possible at around 10 mp. Good high iso performance. Camera handling less “pro” than d300.- d800. Everything looks stunning about this monster. 4.5 fps is a tad disappointing thoug (5.5 at DX, still 15 mp). I also fear a bit the 36 MP. Doesn’t’ this mean that performance on high ISO is less than with d600? Very expensive also. I could afford it ( I have been saving money for years now) but is it worth the extra compared to the d600 or put in another way, if you are going to spend 1900 euro on a d600, isn’t it better to go that bit further and pay 2500 for the d800?

Difficult one this. The framerates are really bad. (I did not know they were this bad! My 7D that costs about half of a D600/700 has 8 frames per second.)The best ones (D3X and D4) do have a good framerate, but a very high price as well.

Continue to use your D300. Just because better, more up-to-date equipment has been released over the years in no ways makes the D300 obsolete in any way. There are simply better suited cameras available to your existing needs. i.e. Wait for the D7000 upgrade, which will almost certainly not be available before your upcoming trip;

Get a D7000. Great camera, but will probably be replaced soon and then you may be disappointed for not waiting. I have this camera and I have to say that I am still not disappointed with its performance. This will be a good upgrade to the D300 performance wise, but note that you would lose some "ruggedness" of the D300. Low light performance will, however, be noticeably better;

Get the D600. All reports point this to be Nikon's best camera in the price/performance arena. I would upgrade if I had the chance, but that would require not only the camera body, but a bunch of longer lenses too, which is just not going to happen for me in a hurry. Low light performance will be a huge improvement over the D300, but this camera, too, is NOT built to deal with the same level of durability of the D300 (as you stated).

The D800 seems to be an overkill for your stated needs and does not match your frames per second. This is really a specialised camera for studio and/or landscape work and the files sizes are rather large to handle for day-to-day pictures. Rather put your extra available cash to a 24-70 f2.8 for those times when the 70-200 is simply too long for the task at hand........

My choice, given what you have stated as your requirements, would be firstly, the D600, then a wait for the D7000 upgrade, then the D7000. An oh, I would also get a 27-70 f2.8, if I had the funds available.......

Hi. One thing that hasn't been mentioned re the D800 (36 million pixels) yet is the ability to use the in camera crop of 1.5 and still get a file of approx 14 million pixels. This allows you to use a 300mm lens plus a 1.4 extender plus the 1.5 crop which gives you a focal length of 630mm. Yes you can crop with some of the other bodies, but your useable file size is very small and so will deteriorate your image quality.

It will be the D800. Yes it might seem a bit overkill for what I stated BUT I did swing it around one day. A friend of mine owns one.

OK, only 4 frames per second which for me is a con. And the 36MP requires a lot of storage capacity. But my day of testing the camera gave me an insight in its pros and they are huge. Immense detail in images, an incredible dynamic range, excellent high ISO performances, a VERY good autofocus (just after release the D800 seemed to have trouble with this but not any more let me tell you) but most of all...it LOVED my 70-200 2.8 lens. That will be the lens I will put on the new "baby". NO teleconverters or anything will be used with that combination. If needed I will use the 1.2 DX mode (still a whopping 25MP AND an acceptable 5fp/s which is the same of my D300) and if the action would be a bit too far I can eventually switch to 1.5DX (still 15MP). But I don't expect to do the last option too much simply because the 36MP or the 25MP will give me a lot of options to crop during the post processing.

The 300f/4 will be mounted on the D300. When really needed I will put my 1.4TC on that combination allthough when I do that I have to get rid of the UV protective filter on the lens. When I leave the filter on the images are just too soft when the TC is used.

To the ones who advised me to ge better lenses instead of a better camera...I hear you people. The thing is, the 70-200 VRII f/2.8 and the 300 f/4 is the best I can afford. I would have to upgrade to a 300 f/2.8 or a 200-400 f/4. Both these options are way more expensive than a d800 and do not forget I really need a new body.

Why not the D7000? Because its successor is due for april this year and I actually don't like the handling of that camera very much (by the way, there is sort of an improved version of the D7000 in the D800 )

And Duques…nice try to get me over to the dark side but no chance buddy! Serious, the 7D looks like a fantastic body and the 8f/s is just fabulous. On all other aspects however the D800 is at least as good. It is actually more the competitor of the Canon 5d mark iii. And the 100-400 is of course a good lens but I have always been very happy about the 300 f/4 and of course about the 70-200 f/2.8. I think in that respect that the sharpness of the 100-400 might disappoint me a tad (although only a tad I’m sure).

I am sure the D800 has everything in it to please me and will encourage me to become a better photographer. But if I would have been a Canonite the choice would have been less difficult and I would have gone straight for the 7D.

Congratulations on your decision. The performance of the sensor in the D800 is only surpassed by the performance in the D800e, and that is only owing to the filters in front of the sensor. Currently it is the king of sensor performance (on average) over a number of criterion.

There are a number of compromises with this camera and you have mentioned them; Frame rate is limited by current technology and will get better as technology improves, and file sizes, which is a function of the 36MP sensor. For the file-size issue, simply get a PC with sufficient memory and disk space to handle such file sizes and the perceived bottleneck will simply disappear.

In terms of the comments regarding getting better glass, aside from upgrading your 300mm f4 to 300mm f2.8, you already have the best. You will certainly be disappointed in the performance of the 100-400, probably getting better performance with your 70-200 with a converter in any event. Your 300mm f4 lacks VR and lacks an aperture of F2.8, but in terms of sharpness it loses nothing over the F2.8 model. Unless you absolutely have to have F2.8 and/or VR, there is no logical reason to upgrade.

While Canon users may believe they have a competitor in their line-up to the D800, this is simply not the case. In terms of overall sensor performance (as defined and tested by DXO), Nikon trounces all so-called competitors and even the D600 sensor beats the 5D mkIII on performance by a wide margin, as does the D7000 over the 7D. However, having said that, sensor performance and camera/lens combination performance can only be fully exploited by someone that is well versed in both the exploitation of the technology to the fullest extent AND the artistic ability to set, frame and capture the required image.

I believe that it is unlikely that many people will be able to tell the difference between similar images captured by different combinations and the advancement of technology is getting to a point where the improvements are almost beyond what the human eye can determine.

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

Scottm wrote: In terms of the comments regarding getting better glass, aside from upgrading your 300mm f4 to 300mm f2.8, you already have the best. You will certainly be disappointed in the performance of the 100-400, probably getting better performance with your 70-200 with a converter in any event. Your 300mm f4 lacks VR and lacks an aperture of F2.8, but in terms of sharpness it loses nothing over the F2.8 model. Unless you absolutely have to have F2.8 and/or VR, there is no logical reason to upgrade.

Exactly my point of vue regarding the lenses! VR on the 300 f4 would be nice BUT...I use it almost exclusively on a beanbag. Next to that the aperture wide open often makes it possible to have shutter speeds of 1/1000 and faster (if when I stop down a bit). Fast enough to handhold so...

Thank you by the way for the links you gave me. They are one of the factors to help me decide.

And of course I second your last paragraph. I am however convinced as I said before that the D800 will push me to learn more about photography. It would be a pity to purchase such a beast and not trying to use it to a full extent!

HiThe D600 is a supurb camera however it is full frame and not all lenses will work fully on the front of it.I own a D7000 and it is also supurb, if the D7100 is better as we are told it is then is should be a great buy.RegardsJDW

I would recommend that you tackle your pleasant dilemma in one of two ways:

Jot down, in order of importance, the features that you require from a camera, firstly have-to-haves and secondly, nice-to-haves. Having completed that list, compare your list to the features of each camera, using that to select the MOST APPROPRIATE for your needs and desires.

Alternatively, list, from the most to the least important, the TYPES of photographs and environments you find yourself, which will give the rest of the forum the background needed to help you make a better informed decision.

Each of the D600 / D7000 / D7100 has its wow factors and its downsides, relative to the others. For example, if speed and buffer size is top of your list, the D7000 is best; If low-light is your thing, the D600 cannot be beaten. The D7100 is great for sharpness as it does not have certain filters, BUT it may CAUSE moire when photographing certain repetitive patterns.......

Each to their own, but they are all very good cameras.

"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

To make things a bit more difficult....Speed is great for wildlife photography so the D7000 or D7100 would be the obvious choice. However, as Scottm says, the low light performance of the D600 is superb. Most good wildlife photography is being done in the golden hours as you know so good low light performance is an absolute pro!

I had the same problem about a month ago. Problem was that the D7100 was not available than. My choice was between D7000, D600 and D800. Decided to break the bank and go for the D800. I am happy I did. Only 4 frames per second means you WILL miss a few shots and the fact that the buffer gets full very quickly because of the massive files means that you have to predict wildlife behaviour better. BUT: because of the excellent low light performance I could easily go to very fast shutter speeds thanks to ISO values up to 3200 without loosing quality. This combined with the very good autofocus on the D800 made for my best wildlife pics untill now. (they were taken in Tanzania so can't show them here but trust me: they are GOOD).

Now take into account that the autofocus on the D600 is also very good (though a bit less than the one on the D800) AND the D600 is actually faster than the D800...if I were you, I would choose the D600. There is a big but...I don't know how the sigma lens will behave on the D600. To be honest, the D800 demands to be used with the best lenses out there. I don't really know if the D600 is just as demanding on this issue.

Not easy, isn't it? On the bright side:...all 3 cameras will be a huge improvement for you

I have a nikon D90 with the 18 to 200mm VR lens. I am thinking of upgrading to either the D7100 or the D610. Thinking of the D 7100 because of the 1.3 crop which translates to a longer telephoto. Just heard that Nikon has announced the D750 FX. Confusion, confusion. Any advice out there?